Prior experience in defunct government schemes warrants objective consideration for appointments in successor schemes.

The petitioners were appointed as Coordinators (Preraks) on an honorarium basis under a Central Government Scheme titled "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram".

They served from 2009 until 2017, providing door-to-door adult education.

The scheme was funded by the Central Government and eventually transitioned through various iterations: first "Padhna Likhna Abhiyan" (2020) and later "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" (2022-2027).

Following a letter dated 15.05.2017 from Respondent No. 4, which refused to enhance honorariums and signaled the end of their current employment, the petitioners sought quashing of the letter, absorption into government service, and continuation of tenure under the new schemes.

Whether the petitioners, having been appointed under a specific government scheme, have a legal right to be absorbed or continued in service after the scheme has been replaced by subsequent schemes.

Whether the experience gained by the petitioners under the previous scheme entitles them to preferential consideration for appointments in the currently active "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm".

The Court primarily relied on the principles of service jurisprudence regarding scheme-based appointments as articulated in Mohd. Abdul Kadir v. Director General of Police, Assam (2009) 6 SCC 611.

This precedent establishes that while ad-hoc employees under a scheme do not have a right to regularization or security of tenure, they should generally be continued as long as the scheme (or its core function) continues to avoid the "agony and anxiety" of annual terminations.

The Court also noted that while courts cannot make policy, they act as "catalysts" when public interest necessitates a policy change for staff performing perennial tasks.

The Court observed that although the original "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram" technically ended, the respondent State admitted in its return that the current "Nav Bharat Saksharta Karyakarm" (effective until 2027) involves "functions similar in nature" to the previous program.

The Court reasoned that the petitioners, having served for approximately eight years (2009-2017), possess "significant skills and experience" that constitute an "additional asset" for the State in successfully implementing the current literacy goals.

By applying the logic from Mohd. Abdul Kadir, the Court determined that the petitioners' experience should be objectively evaluated by the authorities rather than ignored simply because the scheme's nomenclature changed.

The Court granted the petitioners liberty to submit representations to the Collector (Respondent No. 2) and the State Literacy Mission Authority (Respondent No. 5) within 30 days.

The Competent Authority was directed to decide upon these representations within 120 days, taking into account the petitioners' "previous experience and skill," their suitability for the current program, and the legal principles established in Mohd. Abdul Kadir.